The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)
|
||||||
|
Because the circuit court did not comply with section 61.528 by giving the former husband notice, the ex parte order domesticating the North Carolina order is void. See Renovaship, Inc. v. Quatremain , 208 So. 3d 280, 285 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) ("The general principle of law is well-settled: a final judgment entered without adequate notice of the hearing and an opportunity to be heard is void." (footnote omitted)). Accordingly, the circuit court should have granted the former husband's motion to vacate the ex parte order. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540(b)(4) (providing that a court may relieve a party from a final order that is void). We reverse the order denying the former husband's motion to vacate and remand with directions for the circuit court to vacate the ex parte order and comply with the procedure required by section 61.528. On remand, the former husband will have an opportunity to challenge the North Carolina court's jurisdiction under sections 61.514 through 61.523.This Court has the authority to issue an arrest warrant to pick up the minor child. Federal and state courts have concurrent jurisdiction to enforce the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (the "Convention"), but any order removing a child from a person having physical control of the child must meet the applicable requirements of state law. Florida's Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act ("UCCJEA") permits the Court to enter such "orders as necessary to ensure the safety of the child and of any person ordered to appear under this section." Fit. Stat, § 61.523( 3). Pursuant to the UCCJEA, "[i]f the court, upon the testimony of the petitioner or other witness, finds that the child is likely to imminently suffer serious physical harm or removal from this state, it may issue a warrant to take physical custody of the child." Fla. Stat. 61.534 (2). Other federal courts have issued arrest warrants after holding an emergency ex parte evidentiary hearing and ordered the minor child to reside with the petitioner pending resolution of the matter. See, e.g., Moreno v. Martin, 2008 WL 4716958, at * 7 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 23, 2008); Bocquet v… "A court of this state shall treat a foreign country as if it were a state of the United States for purposes of applying ss. 61.501- 61.523. . . . [A] child custody determination made in a foreign country under factual circumstances in substantial conformity with the jurisdictional standards of this part must be recognized and enforced under ss. 61.524- 61.540." § 61.506(1), (2), Fla. Stat.Cobo, pointing to numerous visits to Venezuela, claimed that Florida's courts lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate custody issues. However, it is clear that Florida was the home state of the parties' child, that the child had resided in Florida a majority of the time, and that the child had lived here for six months immediately before this action was brought. See § 61.514(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2008) (stating that "a court of this state has jurisdiction to make an initial child custody determination" where "[t]his state is the home state of the child on the date of the commencement of the proceeding"); see also § 61.503(7), Fla. Stat. (2008) (defining "home state" as "the state in which a child lived with a parent . . . for at least 6 consecutive months immediately before the commencement of a child custody proceeding," and providing that "[a] period of temporary absence of any of the mentioned persons is part of the period"); § 61.506(1), Fla. Stat. (2008) (providing that "[a] court of this state shall treat a foreign country as if it were a state of the United States for purposes of applying ss. 61.501- 61.523" ); Karam v. Karam, 6 So.3d 87, (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (finding that… If a proceeding for enforcement under ss. 61.524- 61.540 is commenced in a court of this state and the court determines that a proceeding to modify the determination is pending in a court of another state having jurisdiction to modify the determination under ss. 61.514- 61.523, the enforcing court shall immediately communicate with the modifying court. The proceeding for enforcement continues unless the enforcing court, after consultation with the modifying court, stays or dismisses the proceeding.. . . treat a foreign country as if it were a state of the United States for purposes of applying ss. 61.501-61.523 . . .
. . . treat a foreign country as if it were a state of the United States for purposes of applying ss. 61.501-61.523 . . .
. . . petitioner to obtain an order from a court having jurisdiction under the criteria specified in ss. 61.514 61.523 . . . pending in a court of another state having jurisdiction to modify the determination under ss. 61.514-61.523 . . .